James Comey testimony: Trump asked me to let Flynn investigation go

[Jacque67 7,328]

"A normal NYC conversation "(Christie)

 

[Jacque67 7,328]

The war team needs to sort itself out...

Kasowtiz : the prez feels completely vindicated and doesn't contest the account ,ie trump did ask Comey to lay off Flynn ( but Trump denied it May 18): k calling t a liar...

Michael Cohen: the account needs more scrutiny and that it must be noted the Steele dossier has been debunked.

 

oh well, who amongst us hasn't called on the FBI director to deny involvement with Russia hookers.

[yuna628 9,873]

Yes, just a normal NYC conversation where the average New Yorker calmly asks ''how is the weather?'' and follows up with that ''they didn't do nothing with any Russian hookers''  

Christie is just too darned cute for words.

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by yuna628

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, jg121783 said:

If the allegations are true Comey himself obstructed justice by not immediately reporting what he knew. But we already know from Comey's May 8th testimony that the allegations are not true. And if they are true he perjured himself on May 8th. So if the allegations are true Comey is guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury and if they aren't true and he says they are tomorrow he will be committing perjury in his testimony tomorrow. 

More impeccable llegal advice for free on CEHEST.  You get what you pay for.

[Dashinka 25,887]

From noted MDLer Alan Dershowitz.  Although it is opinion, I believe Dershowitz does have a good foundation in US Constitutional law.

 

Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.

 

 

The crucial conversation occurred in the Oval Office on February 14 between the president and the then director. According to Comey's contemporaneous memo, the president expressed his opinion that General Flynn "is a good guy." Comey replied: "He is a good guy."

The president said the following: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this thing go.”

Comey understood that to be a reference only to the Flynn investigation and not "the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to the campaign"

Comey had already told the president that "we were not investigating him personally."

Comey understood "the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December."

 

Comey did not say he would "let this go," and indeed he did not grant the president’s request to do so. Nor did Comey report this conversation to the attorney general or any other prosecutor.  He was troubled by what he regarded as a breach of recent traditions of FBI independence from the White House, though he recognized that "throughout history, some presidents have decided that because 'problems' come from the Department of Justice, they should try to hold the Department close."

That is an understatement.

Throughout American history -- from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama -- presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.

It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/07/dershowitz-comeys-statement-fails-to-deliver-smoking-gun-democrats-craved.html

[CaliCat 3,957]

9 hours ago, ccneat said:

More impeccable llegal advice for free on CEHEST.  You get what you pay for.

LOL. You got it.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Wow!

Fawn Hill testified 30 years ago today!!!! What did Comey smuggle out in his boots???

 

preet Bharara has a reserved seat.

senior WH aide tells Peter Alexander trump will monitor Comey in a WH dining room with his legal team and some of his closest advisers (Jared?????)

 

fawn hill...

[CaliCat 3,957]

52 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

Wow!

Fawn Hill testified 30 years ago today!!!! What did Comey smuggle out in his boots???

 

preet Bharara has a reserved seat.

senior WH aide tells Peter Alexander trump will monitor Comey in a WH dining room with his legal team and some of his closest advisers (Jared?????)

 

fawn hill...

 

Funny, how there is so much ado, about allegedly nothing, isn't it?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Jacque67 said:

Wow!

Fawn Hill testified 30 years ago today!!!! What did Comey smuggle out in his boots???

 

preet Bharara has a reserved seat.

senior WH aide tells Peter Alexander trump will monitor Comey in a WH dining room with his legal team and some of his closest advisers (Jared?????)

 

fawn hill...

Fawn hill or fawn hall?   If it was fawn hall and we are on 30 year cycles , Rob Lowe is probably preparing for his next sex tape

Edited June 8, 2017 by ccneat

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Wow, Comey said he wrote down notes with Trump because he didn't trust him and he lies. Never had to do it with Bush or Obama.

Edited June 8, 2017 by JimandChristy

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

From noted MDLer Alan Dershowitz.  Although it is opinion, I believe Dershowitz does have a good foundation in US Constitutional law.

 

Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.

 

 

The crucial conversation occurred in the Oval Office on February 14 between the president and the then director. According to Comey's contemporaneous memo, the president expressed his opinion that General Flynn "is a good guy." Comey replied: "He is a good guy."

The president said the following: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this thing go.”

Comey understood that to be a reference only to the Flynn investigation and not "the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to the campaign"

Comey had already told the president that "we were not investigating him personally."

Comey understood "the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December."

 

Comey did not say he would "let this go," and indeed he did not grant the president’s request to do so. Nor did Comey report this conversation to the attorney general or any other prosecutor.  He was troubled by what he regarded as a breach of recent traditions of FBI independence from the White House, though he recognized that "throughout history, some presidents have decided that because 'problems' come from the Department of Justice, they should try to hold the Department close."

That is an understatement.

Throughout American history -- from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama -- presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.

It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/07/dershowitz-comeys-statement-fails-to-deliver-smoking-gun-democrats-craved.html

Dershowitz is probably right based on the released transcripts. Lets see what the question s bring. One thing for sure , if it was you and me pulling this stuff we would be doing hard federal time. 

And you have to ask yourself, if Trump has nothing to hide why does he work so hard at looking like a man who does? 

[CaliCat 3,957]

Just now, JimandChristy said:

Wow, Comey said he wrote down notes with Trump because he didn't trust him and he lies.

 

Trump's thuggish moves didn't work with Comey. I mean, the guy can't command respect from anyone at home or abroad. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

13 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Wow, Comey said he wrote down notes with Trump because he didn't trust him and he lies. Never had to do it with Bush or Obama.

Yeah , that phases no Trump phanbois. They love the lies. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by ccneat

[bcking 3,157]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

From noted MDLer Alan Dershowitz.  Although it is opinion, I believe Dershowitz does have a good foundation in US Constitutional law.

 

Former FBI Director James Comey's written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.

 

 

The crucial conversation occurred in the Oval Office on February 14 between the president and the then director. According to Comey's contemporaneous memo, the president expressed his opinion that General Flynn "is a good guy." Comey replied: "He is a good guy."

The president said the following: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this thing go.”

Comey understood that to be a reference only to the Flynn investigation and not "the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to the campaign"

Comey had already told the president that "we were not investigating him personally."

Comey understood "the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December."

 

Comey did not say he would "let this go," and indeed he did not grant the president’s request to do so. Nor did Comey report this conversation to the attorney general or any other prosecutor.  He was troubled by what he regarded as a breach of recent traditions of FBI independence from the White House, though he recognized that "throughout history, some presidents have decided that because 'problems' come from the Department of Justice, they should try to hold the Department close."

That is an understatement.

Throughout American history -- from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama -- presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.

It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/07/dershowitz-comeys-statement-fails-to-deliver-smoking-gun-democrats-craved.html

For me the crucial pieces are that conversation coupled with Comey's firing.

 

1. Trump said "I hope you can see your way clear ot letting this thing go"

2. Comey did not "let this thing go"

3. Comey got fired

 

If those three things are all linked, and there is evidence from other conversations that Trump has admitted that Comey was fired because of the Russian investigation (which I know there are "leaks" that he said as much to some Russian diplomat), that is worrisome, in my opinion. He clearly was very suggestive to Comey, and when Comey failed to do what was suggested, he was fired. That seems like attempting to obstruct justice to me.

 

One thing I've seen a lot of people commenting on is whether Trump had "criminal intent" when he said what he said. I think the problem there is Trump is just so clueless when it comes to government and legal matters, I doubt he had criminal intent at all. He probably had to google "obstruction of justice" once people started bringing it up. At the time of his conversation with Comey he probably didn't even realize that trying to get Comey to drop the investigation would be illegal. So I don't think he had criminal intent, but I think that is just because he was clueless about the law and didn't realize what he was doing was illegal. It's the problem of having a clueless idiot in a position of such immense power.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

For me the crucial pieces are that conversation coupled with Comey's firing.

 

1. Trump said "I hope you can see your way clear ot letting this thing go"

2. Comey did not "let this thing go"

3. Comey got fired

 

If those three things are all linked, and there is evidence from other conversations that Trump has admitted that Comey was fired because of the Russian investigation (which I know there are "leaks" that he said as much to some Russian diplomat), that is worrisome, in my opinion. He clearly was very suggestive to Comey, and when Comey failed to do what was suggested, he was fired. That seems like attempting to obstruct justice to me.

 

One thing I've seen a lot of people commenting on is whether Trump had "criminal intent" when he said what he said. I think the problem there is Trump is just so clueless when it comes to government and legal matters, I doubt he had criminal intent at all. He probably had to google "obstruction of justice" once people started bringing it up. At the time of his conversation with Comey he probably didn't even realize that trying to get Comey to drop the investigation would be illegal. So I don't think he had criminal intent, but I think that is just because he was clueless about the law and didn't realize what he was doing was illegal. It's the problem of having a clueless idiot in a position of such immense power.

Exactly, ignorance is not defence. He wanted to become President of the United States, he applied for the job, the huge responsibility. He should've done his homework and got informed.